Daily Archives: February 20, 2010

Real Estate Agents Disclosure is a Duty

The current Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2009 booklet makes a licensee’s duty of care and professional obligation very clear in regards to the subject of disclosure.

Recently in Florida,  there has been an example of a disclosure situation on a large scale.

The Florida, Palm Beach Post published an article back in June, 2009 with the heading;

Parents in The Acreage fear possible cancer cluster; state looks at incidence rate

A week or so back, The Miami Herald report;

Health officials have confirmed the area has higher than normal rates of brain tumors and cancer among children.

Feb 17th, US CBS affiliate CBS12, started out their report by saying;

Tonight, real estate agents are reacting to the news of a cancer cluster in The Acreage.

Also in the last few days, US Fox TV affiliate WFLX have reported that;

The Realtors Association of the Palm Beaches is watching the cancer cluster situation, and they’ve just come out with a new disclosure form that people will have to sign before they buy or lease a home in The Acreage.

Could this have the potential to affect the price of homes in this nominated zone?


YOUTUBE VIDEO – Erin Brockovich Press Conference re: The Acreage

Of note in the States, but something we hardly hear about downunder, is something called Radon. (Americas second leading cause of lung cancer) In many parts of the US this is an especially important consideration that stateside home buyers need to be informed / aware of.

Some reports here are also talking about the potential for radium to be in the water.

On the horizon though, I wonder how a situation like this example below would go;

1] agent is told by neighbours / other agents / buyers of some information about a suburb, information which is more in the “rumour” category, not officially published or confirmed data on the area….perhaps they’ve heard it before also from another source

2] agent thinks its fair to not inform buyers of this? Or agent think its fair that he/she does inform buyers of this?

3] local resident hears about this 2nd / 3rd hand and is told that was the reason this particular “informed / info disclosed to” buyer then deciding against purchasing in his/her street.

4] disgruntled local resident decides to proceed further, possibly exploring legal options, as they perceive value to his/her own property has been prejudiced, by nothing more than rumour / hearsay?

Could this happen in NZ?